During a patch discussion, Linus brought up the option of changing
the C standard version from gnu89 to gnu99, which allows using variable
declaration inside of a for() loop. While the C99, C11 and later standards
introduce many other features, most of these are already available in
gnu89 as GNU extensions as well.
An earlier attempt to do this when gcc-5 started defaulting to
-std=gnu11 failed because at the time that caused warnings about
designated initializers with older compilers. Now that gcc-5.1 is
the minimum compiler version used for building kernels, that is no
longer a concern. Similarly, the behavior of 'inline' functions changes
between gnu89 using gnu_inline behavior and gnu11 using standard c99+
behavior, but this was taken care of by defining 'inline' to include
__attribute__((gnu_inline)) in order to allow building with clang a
while ago.
Nathan Chancellor reported a new -Wdeclaration-after-statement
warning that appears in a system header on arm, this still needs a
workaround.
The differences between gnu99, gnu11, gnu1x and gnu17 are fairly
minimal and mainly impact warnings at the -Wpedantic level that the
kernel never enables. Between these, gnu11 is the newest version
that is supported by all supported compiler versions, though it is
only the default on gcc-5, while all other supported versions of
gcc or clang default to gnu1x/gnu17.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wiyCH7xeHcmiFJ-YgXUy2Jaj7pnkdKpcovt8fYbVFW3TA@mail.gmail.com/
Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1603
Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Acked-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Tested-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Alex Shi <alexs@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
As has been discussed some time ago on ksumitt-discuss@ mailinglist,
the need for trivial tree diminished over time as all the tooling and
processess became much more mature and it's quite natural these days
for trivial patches to flow through subsystem trees anyway, so the
spin-off of a trivial tree doesn't make sense any more, and is not worth
the merge conflicts it might sometimes create.
So remove any mentions of it from kernel documentation for good.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/nycvar.YFH.7.76.2104222334290.18270@cbobk.fhfr.pm/
Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
